Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Email Featured’

Muslim Migrants FLOOD in Next To George Clooney’s $10M Italian Villa


waving flagAuthored By on January 3, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://joeforamerica.com/2017/01/1000s-migrants-moving-next-door-liberal-george-clooney-madonna-not-happy/

After Hillary Clinton and Obama, Democrats are scrambling to find the next “up and coming” star to worship. They need someone that can compete on Trump’s popularity level with the same TV stardom and name recognition. They may be looking at the Ocean’s 11 star, George Clooney.

The latest odds have him at 100 to 1 to run in 2020. He seems to have even gotten better odds since his marriage to 38-year-old Amal Alamuddin, who represented WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, and is one of the world’s leading human rights specialists.

Clooney’s been a dear friend of Obama’s. He’s a typical Hollywood liberal fanatic and has been a strong supporter and fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton. He’s supported their liberal policies including their policy on illegal immigration. However, with the recent influx of thousands of immigrants into Clooney’s quiet, little, romantic “getaway” town of Lake Como, Italy, he might still be thinking – “too close for comfort”. His neighbors sure are.  Here’s a blast from the past:

3645361900000578-3689928-image-a-29_1468495992744

Lake Como has long been a destination favored by the powerful and wealthy, many of whom are attracted by its stunning lakeside villas built in Roman times.

H/T The Sun:

Roberto Bernasconi, from a local Catholic charity, said: “We are helping them with food, clothing and we are also mounting showers.

“But it is very difficult, we do not know how to welcome all these people. In the Como diocese we have over 2,000 migrants in the facilities – there is no room.”

“I do not know how much longer we can bear the brunt of this mass of people who would like to cross the border but who are not willing to leave Como.”you-mean-rapefugees

The groups of migrants arrive in the area having likely travelled up Italy after landing in the south having crossed the Mediterranean by boat.

Just yesterday nearly 1,000 migrants were saved in six separate rescue operations on the Med.

All six boats – including four rubber dinghies – are believed to have set off from Libya, where criminal gangs charge people thousands to be lead on the perilous crossing.

—-

Many of the thousands of illegal immigrants are coming to Italy from Africa and Europe. They’re camping out until they can afford to pay “smugglers” to head north. It seems those nice, old, quaint, brick streets of Como are beginning to get overrun by Asian men who are hawking umbrellas, flowers, and what not. These same immigrants are sleeping on the streets, in the parks and overrunning the community. Locals are not happy and are protesting, especially against plans to set up camps with tattered tents on the boundaries of Lake Como.

CnROQi-WgAIygXA

Eh! Clooney is probably thinking – What’s a few tattered tents, right?

After all, Clooney’s for big government and believes government should take care of everyone else’s problems.

Did I mention what nice things George had to say about Hillary? 

“…I was very, very, very glad that she was secretary of state and that she was an informed, responsible, smart person,”…

Not surprised, since I did start this article by saying George is a liberal and a dear friend of Obama’s and Hillary’s. They ALL welcome more immigrants – even if it means losing jobs, resources, and the character of our own nation.

george-clooney-lake-como

Again, this would be a perfect time for Clooney who described “The Donald” as a “xenophobic fascist,” to actually put into practice what he preachers and simply open his multi-million dollar lakeside mansion and take in few hundred of those Muslim refugees, then we may actually say he’s a man of his word…we’re waiting George.

Once again, George, I hope you are enjoying your view during the holidays!

Do you want

Obama: “The U.S. Must Give Up Some Of Its Freedoms to the UN”


waving flagBy on December 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://joeforamerica.com/2016/12/obama-u-s-must-give-freedoms-un/

Many Americans are very excited to know Trump’s Inauguration Day is right around the corner. We’ve had enough of Obama’s policies which have weakened America and our military and made us look weak among nations around the world. Not that Obama could care. Afterall, Obama supported Obamacare and wanted a One World government, just like Hillary.

At one of Obama’s last gatherings with other world leaders at the UN, Obama said this:

H/T I Have The Truth:

“…but we have to put our money where our mouths are. And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding — to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations like my own accept constraints,” said Obama. “Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions.”

“But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security. And I think that’s not just true for us.”more-words

WTH!? The United Nations has one goal: Globalization. The UN’s only intention is to bring about new world and economic order and support an international system of governance. The UN doesn’t exist to help the world. We’ve already seen how on many occasions how the UN has failed to protect those that really need protections. It hasn’t stopped genocide or wars.

The UN is about global control. They just want to remove guns and disarm citizens, which is unconstitutional in America. America was founded on the Constitution. In America, citizens have the 2nd Amendment – the right to bear arms, but the UN doesn’t want that. They want “ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT” – no borders. Hence, Obama didn’t care about how many illegals he brought in. He just wanted more. The more the merrier; it makes our country weaker.

obama-clinton-400x225

Obama is a globalist and wanted Americans to surrender the US to the UN. He wanted America to give up our freedoms to achieve UN GOALS! Seriously!

The UN just wants America to dissolves its sovereignty to create a new world order. Obama wanted America to give up freedoms to become part of this ‘One World” government’!

Thank God! We are not heading down that path any longer! Hillary Clinton would have just continued down that same path to “One World” order and government.

One of our Founding Fathers said:

download-1

Aren’t we thankful Americans chose the path of freedom and Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton for President. Clinton would have continued America down Obama’s same path of destruction and “One World” order.  Donald Trump will lead us down the path of greatness and help “Make America Great Again”.

Thank you Americans for electing Donald Trump for our next president!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

merry-christmas

#MAGA

This Is What Happens When the Government Disarms You


waving flagPosted 8 hours ago by

URL of the original posting site: http://politicaloutcast.com/2016/01/this-is-what-happens-when-the-government-disarms-you/#B6poR5yMzUY3mLCg.99

This story enrages me. FOX 2 reports: Horrific playground gang rape has NYPD asking public for help.”

Another crime in a gun free zone.

New York police are looking for five men who forced a father at gunpoint to leave his daughter behind so they could take turns raping her, according to a press release.

The 18-year-old female was with her father at the Osborn Playground in Brooklyn around 9 p.m. Thursday when they were approached by five men, according to a press release from the NYPD. 

One of the men pulled a gun on the father and daughter and demanded that the father leave the area, the press release said.

Then each of the five suspects raped the teenager, according to the NYPD.

“The father returned a short time later with two uniformed police officers,” the press release said. The suspects then quickly fled the park and evaded police capture.Criminals and Dictators

So when people say they need more police protection do the mean they want the police to investigate after they have been killed, raped, or otherwise victimized?

I don’t think so.

The victim was taken to a nearby hospital where she was treated and released, according to the press release.

The article tells us that an NYPD spokesperson said she had cuts on “her arms, neck, and knees” from the attack.

What aggravates me about the reports is the many people telling us that parks need more police. The people of New York are already overtaxed. We need private solutions.

If you wonder why liberals tend to fear and oppose the private ownership of firearms, it is simply another aspect of their superstitious belief in socialism. Just like they believe the government is better at supplying healthcare, they think the government is the best provider of security. And just as happens in any other socialist economy, the resource in question gets misallocated. Some areas of a city get extra protection (in highly visible and politically significant areas) while other areas (poor neighborhoods at night) experience shortages.Disarmed Citizenry

Even apart from corruption and political favoritism, no bureaucracy can claim responsibility for the security of a city and efficiently calculate what amount of police presence and other resources each area needs. The larger the city the more difficult it is to guess what is needed.

Yet that is what New York State and New York City have done. They have assumed a burden they cannot possibly carry. And then they have criminalized the only efficient mechanism that society possesses for providing security wherever it is needed: privately-owned firearms. Every law-abiding father and mother is powerless to defend a child from an attack.

But the ruling class cares much more about protecting their stolen monopoly on power than they care about the people the pretend to care about. Barack Obama never weeps for the many people who die because they have been disarmed by their own government. He weeps in frustration that he can’t push more gun prohibition. He wants all the fathers in Dallas and other cities to also have no option but to run off and find the police while gangs molest their children.

Socialism is always about depriving society of its natural abilities to deal with the peoples’ needs on the basis of the empty promise that the government can do it better. Gun control is just part of the socialist vision.

Picture13 burke Hey Leftist In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Los Angeles Makes It Illegal to Own a Gun That Works


Posted on October 29, 2015 by

Tyranney Alert

The Los Angeles City Council — no collection of constitutional scholars cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgthey — on Tuesday unanimously adopted an ordinance that requires any privately owned handgun to be kept at home, either locked or dismantled so that it does not function. Councilman  Paul Krekorian was behind the vote. Krekorian also recently pushed through an ordinance requiring all clips of more than 10-round capacity to be destroyed.

The Los Angeles Times quoted Krekorian as saying, “It’s unacceptable to live in a country where it’s more dangerous to be a preschooler than to be a police officer — and we can do something about that today.”

Gun Control Supporters croppedThe Times neglected to mention what country Krekorian thinks he’s living in.

Cuz that’s definitely a country you wanna stay away from.

Perhaps I’m just not enlightened, but I’m a bit confused what exactly Krekorian imagines is going on in Los Angeles homes.

I’m getting flashes of scenes involving toddlers out strolling the neighborhood, caps on askew, gold chains hanging from their necks, the theme from “The Sopranos” playing over their iPhones, when some punk from a rival block rolls up on his trike, hauls out a nine and goes to town.

It’s like a scene out of the comic strip “Boondocks.” 

Does Krekorian think that toddlers just spend all their time looking for Dad’s gun, then shooting their friends with it? Or is it that Krekorian foresees a day when the U.N. has banned meat animals and roving burger gangs hunt down the last meat available — little Timmy?Armed

That Krekorian is afraid of guns is assumed, but you would probably be correct to suspect that what he’s really afraid of is the people who elected him to office being able to defend themselves not against criminals but the government.Disarmed CitizenryHey Leftist

And the L.A. City Council might have reason to fear that, having invited illegal aliens of all stripes to rest their weary heads within their sanctuary city limits. So, people who are by definition criminals, who often bring crime with them or engage in crime once they get here, are OK. But people wanting to defend themselves against crime, that’s bad.Criminals and Dictators

Councilman Mitch Englander pitched in with Krekorian, saying, “This is less about gun control and simply more about controlling your gun. It’s really that simple.”

And then, to paraphrase the film “Idiocracy,” government will un-Nazi the world, forever.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Romans 13, Christian Resistance, and the Coming Tyranny


waving flagPosted on May 13, 2015 by

 

 

 

If the Wicked

 

If a nation is not guided by God

 

 

 

 

Good people who don't standIn a previous article I discussed the biblical principle of Christian resistance as it relates to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. As was pointed out in that article, there are examples in the Bible of God’s people resisting direct commands by civil officials based on a very specific set of higher law principles.

Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer wrote, “Let us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because they worshipped Jesus… Nobody cared who worshipped whom as long as the worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal worship of Caesar. The reason Christians were killed was because they were rebels”1 and placed the God of the Bible over the claim that the State and its Caesars were gods. The proof?: “they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).burke

This is an old story that has a modern history. King James of the King James Bible wanted a translation that countered the notes in the 1559 Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. “For example, the margin notes for Daniel 6:22 imply that the commands of kings are to be disobeyed if they conflict with the law of God: ‘For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonored.’”2

 

“Embarkation of the Pilgrims.”

Alister McGrath comments:

“Notice also how the Genevan notes  regularly use the word ‘tyrant’ to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word—a fact noted with approval as much as relief by many royalists at this point.”3

It’s no wonder that King James “authorized a fresh translation of the Bible to undermine the republican implications of the Geneva Bible.”4

Because of its no exception tone, Romans 13 is seen as prohibiting all resistance to the law of the State: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. . . (v. 1). The apostle lists no exceptions. Peter makes a similar statement: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14). Again, no exceptions. This is the same Peter who declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19-20). How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction?Picture1

Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766) states the following in his 1750 sermon “Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers”:

“Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.”There are a number of places in Scripture where one verse speaks in absolute terms and other verses offer exceptions. This is not unusual. If I tell my grandchildren to go outside and play until dinner is ready, I have spoken in absolute terms. They are not to come into the house until they are called. No exceptions are given. What if it rains? What if a large dog enters the yard? Can they enter the house without violating my absolute and no exception command?

They would not be violating my “no exception” command because there are unspoken exceptions. They are assumed to be operating without them having to be repeated each time a new command is given. They have been told on previous occasions to “come in when it’s raining” and “do not get near stray dogs that wander into the yard.”

The Bible operates in the same manner. In one place Jesus says, “All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Does this include the civil magistrate? What about the person who strikes an assailant in self-defense? Is this not an exception to Jesus’ “no exception” statement? Since the Bible already discusses self-defense (Ex. 22:2-3; Deut. 19:21) and the role of the civil magistrate (e.g., Gen. 9:6), there is no need to repeat the exceptions since Jesus’ hearers knew He has anarchy and revolution in mind (e.g., Lev. 19:18), not the just use of the sword. Romans 13:4 explains that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword in certain specified cases. Is this a contradiction? No.Tree of Liberty 03

So then, when we read passages like Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14, we must not neglect the rest of the Bible that is equally authoritative and more fully explains and qualifies these passages.

“Many general statements of Scripture must be open to admitting exceptions even those qualifications are not immediately spelled out. Why are so many generalizations stated without qualification? Because the exact conditions restricting their applicability are not known, or because the “accidental” or providential circumstances that render them inapplicable occur so seldom as to be practically negligible, or because such qualification has already been stipulated in another inscripturated context.”5The Persecution has Begun

In summary, we must recognize that as the State becomes more tyrannical and non-Christian in its social and political policies, conflicts between church and State will multiply. That conflict may make it necessary for Christians to say no to statist laws that will force them to violate the laws of God.freedom

There is an additional reason why Christians must understand the limits of civil jurisdiction and the limits of resistance. Because of a desire to see the current corruption in our own nation reversed, some Christians may take it upon themselves to bring about change by revolutionary means. This is an unbiblical agenda to pursue. There is no warrant in Scripture for a revolutionary spirit.

How Christians go about resisting is a question that needs to be answered in exacting detail. The fact that we have lesser magistrates – state governments, governors, and state constitutions – that can serve as legitimate governing authorities as a means to rebuff civil and judicial tyranny is a viable governing avenue for Christians to take.

OARLogo Picture6

ISIS in America and the Importance of the Second Amendment


waving flagPosted on May 5, 2015 by

The push for gun control is a push for assured destruction. A well-armed American cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgpopulation will stop any attempt by Islamic extremists to coordinate a planned domestic terror attack using conventional weapons. I’m reminded of an exchange between Rick, Humphrey Bogart’s character in the film Casablanca (1942), and Major Heinrik Strasser (Conrad Veidt). It has relevance to what happened in Garland, Texas, where two radical Muslims tried to kill people at a First Amendment freedom of speech event.

The Associated Press reports, “An audio statement on the extremist group’s Al Bayan radio station said that ‘two soldiers of the caliphate’ carried out Sunday’s attack and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future.”

Major Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris?

Rick: It’s not particularly my beloved Paris.

Heinz: Can you imagine us in London?

Rick: When you get there, ask me!

Major Strasser: How about New York?

Rick: Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade.

There are a great many places in the United States that I would advise radical Muslims not to go. At the present time, the United States would be difficult to invade, but if gun-control advocates get their way, it would be Red Dawn (1984 and 2012) with a different ending.

Gotta-loveTexas-600-LI
“GOTTA LOVE TEXAS”

The man who is now leading the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL), once held as a prisoner by the United States, told his captors upon his release, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” This is why the Second Amendment is so important. As long as Americans are armed, there is little chance that Islamists will try to take over America from the inside. They will be hopelessly out armed.

They would have a very hard time where I live since everybody is heavily armed. Often I can hear gunfire. People are practicing. An 83,000-square-foot indoor gun range is in the works down the road from where I live. It’s “expected to Gun clubinclude a 35,000 square-foot indoor sporting clay range, a 13,000 square-foot retail showroom and a 6,000 square-foot restaurant and lounge.”

Any discussion about the Second Amendment must take seriously the Islamic threat. The Second Amendment is not about hunting; it’s about defending ourselves from threats of force.

Consider the following from Breitbart. “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), sent a message to his fellow Sunni supporters to commemorate the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.

Baghdadi wrote:

“Soon, by Allah’s permission, a day will come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master, having honor, being revered, with his head raised high and his dignity preserved. Anyone who dares to offend him will be disciplined, and any hand that reaches out to harm him will be cut off.” 

He went on to say, “This is my advice to you. If you hold to it, you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.”

Europe is vulnerable because gun rights are limited. People in the United States are heavily armed. And that’s a good thing.

OARLogo Picture6

Zach Taylor Interview: Human & Drug Smuggling on the Border [VIDEO]


obama-border-is-open-378x257As promised on “Conover U” radio last night – here’s the exclusive interview of Zach Taylor, a 27-year retired border agent who has a thing or two to tell you about the human trafficking, guns and drug smuggling that’s happening on the border with Mexico. By Rodney Lee Conover

The video interview below was granted to filmmaker Chris Burgard, creator of “Back to the Border“, his newest film about the crisis on the US-Mexico border, currently in production.

Parts of the interviewed have been leaked to the web, so I’ve decided to go ahead and post it all here so can see the whole magilla. Trust me, you’ll want to watch the whole thing – it’s shocking.

This wasn’t years ago – this was last week. The invasion is here and I don’t think we can stop it.

zach

Yeah. That’s what I was thinking too, the first time I watched it. Stay tuned:

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

To get involved to help make the full documentary happen – visit the film’s website:

chrisA MESSAGE FROM THE FILMMAKERS:

This is the film Obama does NOT want us to make!

Our country is at a breaking point. We either secure our borders or we cease being a country. This is our opportunity to do something historic. Telling the TRUTH. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

The main stream media is not only NOT doing its job…it’s actively parroting false talking points on behalf of Obama and pro-amnesty special interests. “Objective journalism” died long ago. We are “citizen journalists” and we need YOUR help today to expose the lies and reveal the truth.

We need to make this film NOW, before it’s too late. We intend to document the FULL STORY, but we’ll need your help. TODAY, to get it done.

back to border3Please join our Social Media Team and help us tell every American about this project. Join our Minute Man Rapid Response team to comment on blog posts and news articles.

Before pandering politicians in both Parties vote on, or even DEBATE, “comprehensive immigration reform”, they must see this film…but we have to get it made first.

http://www.backtotheborder.com/latest_videos
Back to the Border: Call to Action

 

Article collective closing

The Shameful Seven: Republicans Who Supported Miss. Racial Attacks


National Day of Protest with date

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Posted by on Jul 17, 2014

ken-cuccinelli-freshKen Cuccinelli, President of the Senate Conservatives reports about The Shameful Seven.

In his report, Cuccinelli (left) lists links to easily post comments on their Facebook pages and on Twitter to spread the word.

Seven Republican senators have now been linked to the racial attacks against conservative Chris McDaniel in Mississippi.

The financial report for Thad Cochran’s super PAC was released earlier this week and contains two alarming details.

First, it shows that the following seven GOP senators gave a total of $160,000 to Thad Cochran’s super PAC:

  • shameful seven1. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — $50,000
  • 2. Bob Corker (R-TN) — $30,000
  • 3. Rob Portman (R-OH) — $25,000
  • 4. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — $25,000
  • 5. Richard Burr (R-NC) — $20,000
  • 6. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — $5,000
  • 7. Mike Crapo (R-ID) — $5,000

Second, it shows that the PAC then gave a similar amount to a liberal group to run racial attacks against Chris McDaniel.

These senators fully funded ads that urged Democrats to “cross over and vote in the republican primary” and claimed that a McDaniel win would be a loss “for race relationships between blacks and whites.”

These seven Republican senators not only supported a 41-year incumbent who regularly votes with the Democrats, but they also funded a shadowy group to get Democrats to hijack the election. There were 25 other Senators who contributed to other PACS that were for Cochran, and there are only 12 Senators who did not contribute any money at all for Cochran.

The Thad Cochran super PAC run by Haley Barbour is the one that funded a shadowy group to get Democrats to hijack the election. Shameful. As Cuccinelli remarks; “These seven senators need to pay a heavy price for their actions…” But will they?

VOTE 02

Military Members Died Defending Our Rights, Will You Allow Their Sacrifice To Be Mocked


I wrote my “open letter”  on the eve of Memorial day – a day we honor the fallen heroes that defend and protect our rights.

These men and women that served and paid the ultimate price for our way of life were someone’s dad, mom, brother, sister, or daughter. They made that sacrifice, which guarantees our freedoms because they believe in America. So I’m asking the question:

Why are the lives of these brave Americans less important than the victims of Elliot Rodger?

Because if the solution to this horrific incident is surrendering to the devious schemes of oppression; it nullifies the sacrifice of all Veterans. To infringe on our rights to bear arms would make a mockery of our fallen heroes who died defending our way of life.

police_stateLeft-leaning politicians and their lapdogs in the mainstream media want to use this “crisis” to further chip away our rights. They want to use Gun Control Supportersthese deaths to gain more power and more control. They only care about the victims so long as they serve a purpose:

The killings are useful, the grieving an opportunity, the survivors are props in a staged circus of phony outrage, but with real people now damaged by the very policies the Marxists hope to arrange more of.

Don’t believe me? Look how the country has taken care of our veterans:

The horror story is right in front of our faces. This President swore five years ago to do something about it and billions of dollars later, all we have to show are dead Veterans in Arizona and no one accountable.

Because once these heroes return from the battlefield, they are no longer useful to the left. They’re thrown aside and ignored in a VA bureaucracy which should have been an obvious warning to all against the horrors of socialized medicine.

Even when 90-year-old men in wheelchairs wish to visit the WWII Memorial in Washington D.C. – a monument they built by trudging across Europe in their bare feet to kill Nazis, cramming into submarines in the South Pacific to hold off the invading Japanese, and staring down Rommel’s tanks in Africa – they’re confronted with steel barricades, compliments of the Administration.

George Washington regarding 2nd AmandmentBack to guns:

-Whistles don’t protect women from rape – a Glock does!

-When armed men come into your house to steal, a baseball bat doesn’t cut it. Unless you have an automatic-baseball bat. I want one of those – email me.

-When a nut-job decides to go on a killing spree and the cops are 5 to 15 minutes away, you are screwed unless you are carrying a Colt.

-And – this is the most important one: Guns are mostly for hunting down politicians who would actively seek to take your freedoms and liberty away from you. Google “Hitler, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Castro, Stalin” just for starters.

As far as me being nice, cordial, respectful – don’t hurt people’s feelings… bla bla? We tried that and look where it got us?

Comming Soon 02VOTE 02

 

Government is Three Times More Valuable Than God?


A friend of mine, Ron Johns – a Sunday school teacher who like myself, lives in Toledo – sent over a speech he gave over the Easter weekend in the Toledo suburb of Perrysburg. It was at a gathering of activists who were holding the “Toledo Tax Day.”

I loved the speech and got some terrific ammunition for tax debates – especially this gem:  “For those that don’t know; tithing is Christians giving the first 10% of their income to God and anything past that becomes an offering. Taxation for the average American for their income with all levels of government sticking their hand in the cookie jar is 30%…”

Killer! There’s a lot more in the video below. As Ron puts it; “Two things you were always told to never talk about at family gathering has  always and will always be religion and politics. Unfortunately for myself my two favorite things to discuss are religion and politics…” 

speech

Original article:

http://www.ronjohnsfortoledo.com/extremely-hilarious-comparison-god-vs-government/

ronRon Johns has lived in Toledo all his life, graduated from Maumee High School in 2010, from there moved on to The University of Toledo and graduated in 2014 majoring in Marketing and Entrepreneurship.

At the University of Toledo Ron lead the campus’ local Young Americans for Liberty chapter as President , wrote for the local college newspaper; The Independent Collegian and for the most part went to class.

Truths that need to be told about Hillary Clinton from Dick Morris


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/truths-need-told-hillary-clinton-dick-morris/#8MX2yOBRr6ihuIRi.99

Posted By on Jan 24, 2014

A very good and dear friend of mine, owner of Executives Service Agency in Phoenix, Arizona, contacted me with some information regarding Hillary Clinton. He suggested that I do some research to verify it for myself, and so I did. What I found was almost unbelievable. Hillary didn’t really have a great past before she entered politics.  One could say it was quite radical. In fact, we could say it was extremely radical.

Now, I pride myself on writing my own material and only use other sources for verification of facts, but I am going to share some information from Dick Morris.com, written by Mr. Morris about Hillary back in May of 2007.

Mr. Morris writes:

Bill Clinton’s syrupy five minute ad for Hillary… he introduces the commercial by saying that (he) wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background. His version of her biography is about as reliable as if it appeared in Pravda!

So, I wanted to make a few corrections.

Bill says: Hillary never wanted to run for public office, but she did want to work at public service.

Bill says: In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.

The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected governor.

Bill says: President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: Hillary was the face of America all over the world

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them

Bill says: Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton:  She has done everything possible to weaken our country (that’s you and me!) when it comes to dealing with the enemies of the United States.

  1. She wanted to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
  2. She wanted to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.
  3. She wanted to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
  4. She wanted to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.
  5. She wanted to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary Clinton has introduced, or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in order to deal with our enemies.  However, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens the United States and makes it a more dangerous place for all of us.

One fact was Hillary used taxpayer money to apologize for the “offensive video,” that was used as an excuse by the Obama administration to cover for her and the president’s ridiculous lie about the attack in Benghazi in 2012.

Point of fact, I really can’t think of any good Hillary Clinton has done before or after she married Bill Clinton and especially not as Secretary of State under Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Hey Hillary I told you, “Do you really think we are going to let you forget that or for that matter- get away with it

Author: Richard Anthony

Richard Anthony is a US Army veteran who served from 1975 to 1980.  He was stationed in Frankfurt West Germany from 1976 to 1978 with the 3rd Armored Divisions 143rd Signal Battalion as a Tactical Telecommunications Center Specialist and was also with the 1st Cavalry Division 1st/12th Cav as a Combat Medic until discharge in 1980.  He has been married for 20 years and has 3 sons.  He’s also a very involved Tea Party activist.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/truths-need-told-hillary-clinton-dick-morris/#8MX2yOBRr6ihuIRi.99

Obama’s Back Dated & Forged Selective Service Form Hits Washington Times in Full Page Ad


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamas-back-dated-forged-selective-service-form-hits-washington-times-full-page-ad/#ctclKVfMEbUw4PWK.99

Posted By on Dec 10, 2013

m05-wtnw12092013-obamadraftcardforged-withhdr

Someone has finally decided to put out Barack Obama’s forged documents in  some mainstream papers.  On Monday, CDR  Charles Kerchner (Retired) took out a full page ad in the Washington Time to  make people aware of the fraudulent documents of Barack Hussein Obama,  specifically his back dated and forged selective service form.

Kerchner’s ad appeared on page 5 of the Washington Times National Weekly and  included a large copy of Barack Obama’s Selective Service form, along with  various URLs to other pertinent information on the various forgeries of Obama’s  documents.

m05-wtnw12092013-obamadraftcardforged-withhdr

If you thought Kerchner was done with only one ad dealing with Obama’s  Selective Service form, you would be mistaken.  He also dealt with John Boehner.

Kerchner blasted  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who apparently has taken a similar stand to  that of Markwayne Mullins, who said he believes  that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud, but doesn’t “give a sh*t.”

Mr. Kerchner wrote:

He then included another full page ad in which he wrote a “Dear John” letter  that he believed Lady Liberty would pen if she was able, calling him on the very  things he wrote above.

WT-NW-12092013-TEARSHEET-Pg36

Herchner included links to Arizona Chief Investigator Michael  Zullo’s sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that Obama’s documents have  been forged, as well as documentation  provided by Debbie Schlussel that Obama’s Selective Service registration is a fraud.

The pressure continues to build, however, don’t expect establishment  Republicans to get on board.  After all, they this is really no big deal and  they are ready to roll over in bed with the Democrats as they have already  shown.  However, there is hope that some Tea Party representatives, like Steve Stockman, who do believe there is validity to the  information and want to see a serious inquiry for the public’s best interest.   Stockman even passed out copies of Articles of Impeachment to every House member earlier  this year.

Contact your  representative or senator today and let them know you want this issue  investigated and resolved, including impeachment and removal from office of  Barack Hussein Obama if necessary.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Google  Plus

Author: Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of  liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow  Tim on Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamas-back-dated-forged-selective-service-form-hits-washington-times-full-page-ad/#ctclKVfMEbUw4PWK.99

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama


 

If the rest of us followed what President Barack Hussein Obama said and did, we would…

Take vacations at the expense of others, and those vacations would take place at the most inopportune times.

We’d stick our nose into other people’s business, make wild accusations and then invite that person over for a beer.

We would tell everybody else how to run their business, what product and how much of that product they should sell, at what price and then if, god forbid, they manage to make a profit, tax them out of business.

Evil-Obama-2

Well, maybe not 100% but he seems to be trying pretty hard!

We would try to appease everyone, especially people who did not have our best interests in mind.

We would split our friends and family up into groups according to their income, race, sexual preference, country of origin, gender, age, body type, religion, creed and then do everything we can to get each group to despise one another.

We’d spy on the neighbors without any guilt, and if caught would defend our actions by claiming we were only trying to protect our neighbors.

We would spend everyone else’s money, then take expensive trips to Africa, bringing their family, bodyguards and friends with us.

We would blame others for our own mistakes.

We would blame others for our own mistakes. (bears repeating twice)

We’d all be selfish, unethical, deceptive, and just bad for us.

We would disrespect our military, using them as props or have them do menial task (like holding an umbrella)

We would help terrorist destroy our country.

We would fundamentally transform the greatest country there ever was into a failed social experiment.

We would destroy America.

”We don’t need no stinkin’ private business sector”


BO don't need no stinking constitutionOnce upon a time, two high school buddies, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, decided they could build a graphics-friendly home computer. They set up shop in the Wozniak family garage, hand-crafted 50 computers and sold them to a retail computer outlet. When the computers sold quickly, Steve and Steve realized their product had potential. They needed capital (money) to expand production. A successful businessman co-signed a bank loan for a $250,000 cash infusion that enabled Steve and Steve, in 1976, to officially establish Apple Computer. Now, 37 years later, Apple is valued at $651.51 BILLION dollars and has generated hundreds of products and thousands of jobs all over the world.

Could these two entrepreneurs duplicate their business success today in America? HAHAHA! Are you kidding?

Fast forward to 2013. The Wozniak family own their home and property and have the Constitutional right to use it as they wish. The government doesn’t agree. In order to operate a two-person business in a residential garage, Steve and Steve are required to re-zone the hood, obtain multiple permits for this and that, and pay hundreds of dollars in fees.Uncle SCAM and control

Uncle SCAM sends an inspector from OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to evaluate the workplace, lunchroom/mom’s kitchen, and employee/guest bathroom to be sure government standards are being met. OSHA determines the environment is satisfactory and approves access for all company personnel (meaning Steve and Steve).

The OSHA inspector also determines that the most up-to-date and correct permits,business licenses, safety and grievance procedures are posted at the correct height in the correct space on their correct bulletin board which is correctly attached to the correct wall stud. Not too high, not too low, but just right and in accordance with OSHA rules.

Steve and Steve are mandated to install a double-locked storage cabinet for hazardous garage equipment like rakes and hedge clippers in order to prevent unauthorized access and potentially harmful use by a potential future employee with potential emotional issues and the potential to go postal.

OSHA rules require that resident rodent eradicators  (like the family cat who has unlimited access to the garage/office/workspace), be properly licensed and checked for fleas and other vermin. When Tabby is observed catching and killing an errant mouse, Steve and Steve are required to file a wrongful death report. This generates a visit from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) who demand the use of humane traps, and require Tabby to attend a “Capture and Release” seminar in Las Vegas, co-sponsored by the GSA (Government Service Agency).

Despite wasting non-productive hours filling out useless OSHA reports and excessive government forms of every type imaginable, Apple’s sales increase until it becomes necessary to hire several employees and occupy a larger production facility.

bank of dadHowever, Steve and Steve hit a snag. When expansion money is unavailable from the usual financial institutions, they turn to old reliable . . .  the bank of Mom and Dad.

However, this bank is closed due to depleted savings and 401(k) retirement accounts. Both mom and dad are restricted to part-time work and must purchase government-approved health insurance that costs 50 to 75% more than before.

So, Steve and Steve, along with Mom and Dad and assorted relatives and friends, locate part-time jobs flippin’ burgers and stocking Walmart shelves to generate expansion capital. Their hard work pays off. They accumulate what they need, move their facility to an industrial park and hire workers.

All goes well until Steve and Steve hire their 51st employee.

“Knock! Knock!” (And no, it’s not Avon calling.) It’s the IRS arriving to exercise the Supreme-Court-granted right to collect health insurance taxes. The agent demands proof of government-approved coverage, then sets about fingerprinting and DNA mouth swabbing all employees. When Steve and Steve object to this un-Constitutional action, the IRS agent quotes the president, “Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.”

By this time, Steve and Steve realize the extent of ongoing government surveillance by the IRS and OSHA, and the profit-eating nature of having to provide health insurance for all employees. They close up shop.BO benefit card

Their former employees trek down to the government-run unemployment office looking for jobs. A counselor advises them to exercise their Constitutional Rights for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and signs them up for welfare, food stamps, disability, and cell phones.

Meanwhile, back in the Wozniak garage, ever-creative Steve and Steve invent the all-in-one-apple-pie-mixer-and-easy-bake oven. A trip to the Shark Tank TV program introduces Steve and Steve to Laurie who presents their apple-pie-mixer and-easy-bake oven to the Home Shopping Network. Their product launches with $3 MILLION dollars in initial orders which finances construction of production facilities in business-friendly Singapore.

Sound like a winning scenario? Not really. Because of un-Constitutional interference by a government on steroids, hundreds and thousands of jobs are not created, billions of dollars in personal income and tax revenue is never generated. The world eats apple pie instead of computing, phoning, texting, playing games, shooting videos, or reading books on Apple anything.

START THE CONVERSATION: Pass this politically incorrect fable on to a low-information voter, then ask if they believe government has the Constitutional right to control private sector business.

If you’d enjoy a sneak preview of Molli’s upcoming book, “Uncle SCAM Wants Your Money and Your Country,” to be published in August,  CLICK HERE. A former publisher, Time-Life editor, motivational speaker, and author, Molli writes Politically Incorrect Fables to enlighten low-information voters, fire up patriots, and irritate progressives. Additional fables and daily rants are posted at www.grannyguerrillas.com

“We Have Plenty Of Money If We Just Loot More People”


There has never been a clearer picture of Socialism than the following story. No longer is the Radical Socialist Left Wing spinning their intentions. Now they are outright saying, “We are Socialist and proud of it.”

Now, what are we going to do about it? Mid-Terms anyone? – Jerry Broussard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The words came from Democratic Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota:“The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it.”

 

You couldn’t ask for a clearer portrayal of the ethics of plunder. “We” are the government and “we” are not broke because all the government needs to do is to take money from other people. Ellison was advocating for his “Inclusive Prosperity Act.” He explained, “The government has a right, the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing – all these things.”

 

The looting mechanism proposed in the “Inclusive Prosperity Act” is a sales tax on every sale/purchase of a stock, bond, or derivative. This would arguably be destructive to the economy, but I’ll leave that argument to the side. Instead, let me ask, if everything turned out as rosy as Ellison pretends, would we be better off? Ellison claims his new tax would rake in $300 billion a year.

 

I have no idea how realistic his assumptions are. Is he assuming that there would be no reduction in sales of stocks, bonds, or derivatives? Whatever. Pretend he is right and we get $300 billion a year coming into the government. What does he want to do with it? The Bill itself says the money will be used to “fund international sustainable prosperity programs such as health care investments, AIDS treatment, research and prevention programs, climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts by developing countries, and international assistance.”

 

I’m not going to address the value of these goals, or if they are based on hallucinations, in some cases, or not. We don’t need to go into all that. The essential point here is that Ellison is questing for more government spending. The best you can say about him is that he doesn’t admit that he wants to increase the national deficit. But what was that deficit? For 2012 the national deficit was over a Trillion dollars for the fourth year in a row.

 

So the man who is telling us that “we have plenty of money,” even if we assume he really can get all the revue he claims he can get, year after year, is powerless. $300 billion wouldn’t even cover a third of the national deficit if we didn’t spend it on anything else.

 

So, even by these wildly optimistc claims, we are still just a larger version of Detroit heading toward inevitable collapse and bankruptcy. Ellison would loot more people to simply make our financial situation even less safe. He is living in a dream world.

Mayor Bloomberg: New York Gun Crimes are Virginia’s Fault


The following article is what prompted my naming this blog; “What Did You Say?”. These extreme, liberal Left wackos are convinced that we are so stupid that we will actually believe them when they make such moronic statements. Please, someone stop the world and let them off. – Jerry Broussard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 
 
Gun grabbers always blame gun crime on the guns themselves. Or global warming. Anything but the criminals. Like Sheila Jackson Lee said earlier this year: “Don’t blame the gangbangers.” They need rehabilitation, not punishment, and we just need to get rid of all the guns.
 
 
Chicago and Detroit violence isn’t blamed on draconian gun control laws, but the fact that surrounding states have fewer restrictions on guns. And those guns end up being smuggled into the metropolitan areas of Illinois and Michigan. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is peddling that same excuse for his own city’s gun crimes. New York City is number three in number of gun murders committed between 2009 and 2010, after Los Angeles and Chicago. They had 1,101 murders committed with guns during that time period. And he can’t blame gun control.
 
 
He can’t take any responsibility. He’s got to find someone or something else to blame: “Despite all we do to keep our city safe, we’re increasingly at the mercy of weak national gun laws and weak gun laws in other states. We have been attacking this problem from every angle, but we cannot do it alone.”
 
 
Bloomberg’s chief policy adviser John Feinblatt stated that more guns from Virginia were recovered from New York City crime scenes than from any other state, and it’s been that way for a long time: “Take Virginia. That state requires no background checks for private sales, and the legislature in that state even recently rolled back their state laws by stripping their one-gun-a-month purchase limit.”
 
 
Did it ever occur to Bloomberg or Feinblatt that criminals are attracted to “gun-free zones?” Did it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, if New York adopted a more gun-friendly culture (which won’t happen), there would be a lot less desire for criminals to smuggle guns in from other states into New York, and a lot less desire to commit crimes at all? It’s not that other states are too gun-friendly. It’s that New York City, Detroit and Chicago have bought into the idea that gun-free zones are the answers to violence.
 
 
If every state repealed their respective gun control laws, then there would be no safe place for criminals. Violent crime would be rare.

Extortion 17- Set Up and Cover Up


06 Extortion 17If you haven’t heard of Extortion 17 it’s understandable. For some reason the obama regime has been working real hard to suppress any information regarding this incident and to keep it from getting into the Mainstream Reality TV media. Thankfully, their efforts to cover their involvement in both the incident and the cover up have blown up in their faces. The usual spin, stonewalling, deception and manipulation of events that is a hallmark of the obama regime has fallen short. Congressional hearings are on the way.

A fabricated outrage of synthetic racism can generate only a finite amount of distraction before people begin to tire of the baseless rants and violence. In contrast, this is a real story about real American heroes who paid the ultimate price as a result of the misdeeds committed against them. This is also a story of betrayal. A betrayal by a government of its most dedicated, loyal and faithful public servants. It is a story of systematic treachery against the fallen and against our nation.

Extortion 17 was the call sign for a Chinook helicopter which crashed while conducting a special operations mission in Tangi Joi Zareen, which is in the district of Sayd Abad in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. The crash took place on August 6th, 2011 , reportedly as a result of an RPG strike. It was the largest loss of American lives in a single day in the entire Afghanistan conflict. The circumstances surrounding the crash are suspicious to say the least.

Thirty Eight persons perished in the crash, thirty of those were American service personnel. Fifteen of the fatalities were members of Navy SEAL Team 6, recklessly identified three months earlier by our vice president as the unit which killed Osama Bin Laden. Also among the casualties were two other SEALS, five Navy Special Ops Support Personnel, five Army National Guardsmen and three Air Force Special Ops personnel. Seven Afghan soldiers and one Afghan civilian interpreter were killed as well.

The obama regime and the military establishment would have you believe that this slow-moving, sitting duck Chinook was brought down by the skill or luck of a Taliban fighter under normal battlefield conditions. This is not the case.

There are many abnormalities and deviations from protocol which are suspicious and indicate possible dereliction or criminality on the part of senior leadership involved, both military and civilian.

Some questions regarding these irregularities include:

  • Why was there no suppression of the known enemy positions from which the fatal attack was launched? Extortion 17 attempted a landing 3 ½ hours into an intense firefight.
  • Why transport 25 Seals and special ops troops together in a combat situation in a Chinook helicopter, a slow-moving transport helicopter which was totally inappropriate for this type of engagement?
  • Why was no cover provided through support aircraft at any time, during the mission into a live fire hot zone, in violation of standard protocol?
  • Why did the U.S. Military invite a Muslim imam to pray over (desecrate) the bodies, pronouncing that the “infidels” are lesser than the Muslims, that the Muslims are the winners and that the “infidels” are damned to Hell for eternity?
  • Why is the obama regime silent on the desecration of bodies of American service men but outraged at Koran burnings or service men urinating on dead Taliban?
  • Why were all of the bodies cremated and the explanation given that the bodies were burned beyond recognition when there is photographic evidence that at least some of the victim’s bodies were easily identifiable?
  • Why were the seven Afghani troops originally on the flight changed at the last minute with seven others with no changes made to the flight manifest? Were they part of a plot that brought down the Chinook?
  • Who ordered the Afghani troop change and for what reason?
  • Why were the two flight data recorders supposedly not recovered from the crash site? A claim that a flash flood washed them away was given to the families. If these boxes can be recovered from an ocean bottom, how much of an obstacle can a desert flash flood, if it actually occurred, really be?
  • Intelligence had indicated on May 11th, ten days after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, that over 100 additional Taliban fighters were in the area of the crash seeking specifically to exact revenge for the Bin Laden killing. Yet the military still sent these troops in unprotected into a live firefight. Who made this decision?
  • Why do the rules of engagement place a greater value on the “winning of hearts and minds of the enemy” than on the life of the service man/woman?
  • Why do protocols require the admittedly Taliban infiltrated Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police and Afghan Security Ministry to be involved in all planning of all special operations including flight routes and landing zones? This is the same as giving our operational plans directly to the enemy.
  • What was the urgency that necessitated this last minute operation? Supposedly this was an urgent mission but no explanation or evidence has been provided to indicate why.
  • Why were no members of Afghan military questioned during the investigation or in the writing of the investigative report of the crash? If they are so valuable that they must be included in every planning, one would think they might be valuable in the investigation as well. Perhaps some light could have been shed on the seven mystery Afghan soldiers and the story around the switch.
  •  How did Taliban know on May 11th, ten days after the killing of Bin Laden that seal team six or coalition force as they described it, would be an available target in Tangi Valley? Was it information provided by the Afghan military?
  •  No pathfinders were available in advance of the crash and the drone eye in the sky quit working at the time of the crash. The U.S. military also claims it did not know the identity of the helicopter that crashed for ten minutes. What caused the multi-layered surveillance and communications black out?
  •  After the crash, over one hundred U.S. military troops descended on the area, including pathfinders. Why were they not available before?

These are not my questions. These are the questions of the family members and concerned retired generals, admirals, active congressmen and women, and other high profile Americans who are working tirelessly to bring attention to this injustice.

The obama regime has casually ignored the many scandals that have plagued it in recent weeks and months, dismissing them as phony. They are not phony. The phony is the liar hiding behind a press secretary and hoping this will all just go away.

The administration has belittled, mocked and abused our fighting men and women for five years. They have installed rules of engagement that have undoubtedly resulted in the deaths and disfigurement of many of our troops for the sake of political posturing. Enough is enough. This issue will not go away. It’s time for this illegitimate anti-American regime to be held accountable for their despicable actions. It’s time for these families to be heard.

Rick Wells is an author and a small business owner. He contributes to Joe The Plumber among other conservative media outlets, and he is the co-founder of the charity organization ‘Give a Kid a Smile’ which you can follow and support on Facebook.


 

Pope ObamaLast I heard, Pope Francis was visiting Brazil and his car took a wrong turn.  Obviously something dramatic happened because today it appears that Barack Obama is not only President of the US, he’s now Pope.  This should, once and for all, put a stake through the heart of the “Muslim” rumors.

President/Pope Obama pontificated at a campaign rally at Knox College today for one hour and six minutes.  A truly Clintonesque homily supposedly on his new initiatives to get the US economy moving.  This makes his hundred and thirty second “pivot” back to the economy for a speech, and let’s be clear, talking about the economy is the only thing he’s done for the last five years other than working to regulate the US economy to be the western equivalent of Zimbabwe.  Think of it as an affirmative action economy.

You’re probably asking yourself, “What’s this got to do with Barack being Pope?” and that’s an excellent question.  Given the level of pontificating he’s been doing lately, well, here’s Webster…

Pontificate

I’m old, and honestly I can’t remember a more pompous or dogmatic speaker.  I’m reasonably sure that he could be thinking he’s discharging the duties of the pontiff, and I know for sure that he’s in love with the idea of the Pope’s term of office (that would be “for life”).

The next question you’re going to ask is probably “What did he say?”  Another excellent question.  Here’s what Doug Schoen, a Democrat and a political strategist, pollster, author and commentator who writes for Forbes has to say.

Obama doubled down on his approach in 2012: division, polarization and moving to the left.

Much like in 2012, the President placed little emphasis on tax reform or growth. He spoke of bringing jobs back to America – specifically in manufacturing – but did not reveal many details of how he would achieve this.

We heard some talk of balancing the budget and deficit reduction, cornerstone issues of the protracted battle in the House at the end of last year and beginning of 2013. But there was no talk of a long-term deficit reduction plan or plan for entitlement reform that will save crucial programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The President emphasized redistribution above all else

You should read all of what Schoen had to say, I’m just quoting the positive part.

Then there was Obama administration flack Dana Milbank who writes for the DNC Hotsheet Washington Post.

But even a reincarnated Steve Jobs would have trouble marketing this turkey: How can the president make news, and remake the agenda, by delivering the same message he gave in 2005? He’s even giving the speech from the same place, Galesburg, Ill.

White House officials say this will show Obama’s consistency. …

Yes, but this also risks sending the signal that, just six months into his second term, Obama is fresh out of ideas.

I would question whether Barack Obama ever had any “ideas”, at least ideas that he didn’t get from Karl Marx.

Then, there is Chris Cillizza (I like to quote him just so I can prove I can type his name) …

You could be forgiven if you thought you had heard President Obama’s speech on the economy today before. Because you have.  For most of the 2012 campaign. (Don’t trust us, read Obama’s 2012 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.)

You’ve got the idea.  No new ideas, the same regulation driven, top-down, centrally planned Soviet economy that he’s been pushing for the last five years.  He did blame Republicans for a whole variety of things like causing gridlock, blah, blah, blah.

It will be most interesting to see how the TV media treat this first speech in what is billed as a whole series on the economy.  I’m sure MSNBC will hail it as Lincolnesque, the real question is whether the other networks will have the good sense to recognize that it’s a rehash of the stuff that hasn’t done anything to actually improve the economy or put people – other than bureaucrats – back to work.  If they figure it out maybe they’ll just ignore the speech and focus on new Prince George.

I find the print coverage interesting because it looks like President Obama is either losing or has lost the print guys.  Last time around with this same speech they were throwing rose petals at his feet.

The next three years could turn out to be, as the Chinese philosopher intoned, interesting times.

Mark Twain On The Entitlement Mentality


Posted by //  http://joeforamerica.com/2013/07/mark-twain-on-the-entitlement-mentality/

 

97n/24/huty/7252/18Mark Twain specified that his autobiography not be released until he had been dead for 100 years. He wanted to make sure that everyone he insulted in his final work would also be dead, along with close relatives. The autobiography is out now and there are plenty of the dead and buried insulted in it. But one group he insults is not only still alive—it’s growing by leaps and bounds. This group consists of people who look to nanny government for their sustenance, a group that has come to be known as the entitlement generation.

In his autobiography Twain comments that “Any man who is satisfied to be fed by another man rather than by the honest sweat of his own brow should be shot.” Twain cites numerous occasions in his life when he was taken advantage of while trying to do a good deed for another man. Twain’s well-intentioned deeds typically consisted of providing for people who claimed to be down on their luck. In variably, the person “helped” did not appreciate the help, did not pay back the money Twain loaned him, and did not change his profligate ways. This situation should sound familiar to anyone aware of what has happened to America during the Obama administration. In fact, if Mark Twain were still alive he would be aghast to learn that the phenomenon he decried has become an accepted and acceptable way of life in America.

Twain, never one to treat politicians gently, would have much to say about President Obama and so-called progressive liberals who not only condone the entitlement mentality, but promulgate it as a political strategy for gaining and retaining power. I am sure he would also have a word or two to say about Americans who think the government—that is to say the American taxpayer—owes them a living.  If Mark Twain could come back from the grave he would find an America much changed from the one he knew.  Twain’s was a more self-reliant America in which those who were truly down on their luck looked to charity for help, not the government, and those who could work did.

Mark Twain and people of his era knew instinctively that to allow a man to live off the earnings of others was to rob that man of his dignity, ambition, and self-worth, not to mention robbing the giver of his hard-earned income.  They also knew that when dealing with people you get more of what you reward.  Reward sloth through government entitlements or any other means and you will get more sloth.  It is really that simple.  The entitlement mentality is more addictive than cocaine and it can spread faster than a virus.  Allow a man to get used to being idle and he will want to be idle forever.  Reward idleness with government entitlements and people will make a living from being idle.

Laziness, sloth, and idleness are concepts that even the most ignorant, uneducated, unskilled individual is born knowing how to exploit to his advantage.  People who will not exert even an ounce of initiative, drive, or energy to take care of themselves will exert enormous effort, motivation, and innovation when it comes to playing the system to get the most for doing the least.  These entitled individuals then sire large numbers of entitled youngsters—usually out of wedlock—who grow up with the entitlement mentality instilled at their mothers’ breasts.  Mark Twain might have over stated his solution to this problem somewhat, but he at least recognized the need for a solution.

Read more articles from  at Patriot Update.

Case On Religious Counseling of Homosexuals Wanting Out Could Set Precedent


by // http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/case-on-religious-counseling-of-homosexuals-wanting-out-could-set-precedent/#ixzz2Zths9x4d

Even though homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in today’s hedonistic society, it still carries a stigma about it as it should.  God says it’s an abomination.  It’s a sinful lifestyle, just like stealing, lying, incest, pedophilia, lust, greed and murder.

Gay activists believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.  They also encourage millions of children and teens to explore same-sex attractions.  However, it’s not okay for a homosexual to explore normal straight relationships or seek counseling to help themselves overcome their sinful lifestyle and desires.  In fact, they feel so strongly about any form of counseling or therapy that helps homosexuals leave the lifestyle that they have tried to pass laws in California banning the practice.

Now, gay activists are filing lawsuits against religious organizations that help counsel those who want to overcome their homosexuality and lead a normal life.  One such religious group is JONAH (Jews Offer New Alternative for Healing).  Their mission statement reads:

“JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, is a non-profit international organization dedicated to educating the world-wide Jewish community about the social, cultural and emotional factors which lead to same-sex attractions. JONAH works directly with those struggling with unwanted same-sex sexual attractions (SSA) and with families whose loved ones are involved in homosexuality.”

“Our Rabbinical sages explain that because mankind has been endowed by our Creator with a free will, everyone has the capacity to change. Furthermore, the Rabbis emphasize that parents, teachers and counselors have a special responsibility to educate, nurture, and provide an opportunity for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions to journey out of homosexuality.”

“Through psychological and spiritual counseling, peer support, and self-empowerment, JONAH seeks to reunify families, to heal the wounds surrounding homosexuality, and to provide hope.”

JONAH like most other religion based counseling groups does not go out and hunt down homosexuals and force them to convert to a straight life.  Rather they provide the counseling and support to those who seek it voluntarily.  The nearly 70 religious groups that provide counseling to help those who want help all report a number of success stories and can document that the counseling and therapy do work.

Gay activists know that these groups are being successful and they can’t allow that to happen.  In typical liberal fashion, they attack the religious groups by claiming they are frauds and that they are hurting people.  They fear the success of groups like JONAH so much that they are now taking legal actions against them.

A far left-wing liberal group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against JONAH, claiming they are frauds and want the courts to stop them from saving anymore people from their debauched lifestyles.  Charles LiMandri, President and Chief Counsel of Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund is representing JONAH in their court hearing that started last week.  He says that SPLC is doing their best to deprive homosexuals to their right of self-determination and religious freedom when they consider that the Torah teaches that it is a forbidden sin.

LiMandri described the lawsuit saying:

“The SPLC is taking the position that telling homosexuals that you can help them overcome same sex attractions is a fraud, that there’s nothing wrong with having same sex attractions and there’s nothing wrong with being involved in homosexual behavior.”

“Because JONAH is a religiously-based organization, the idea it follows is that homosexuality is disordered.  Not because it’s a mental disease or defect, but because it’s a sinful behavior and it’s against God’s plan.”

LiMandri was planning to ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit on constitutional grounds including the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

Whether you realize it or not, there is a lot riding on this lawsuit.  If SPLC wins, it will give every other gay rights group the legal precedent to challenge and stop all religious groups from trying to help those who seek help.  Homosexuals who want to change and want someone to help them overcome their sinful lifestyle will have no one left to turn to for help.  They will be left to struggle on their own and often that struggle can lead to serious consequences including suicide.  It would also mean a severe legal blow against the First Amendment rights to the freedom of religion and speech, further weakening our already crumbling Constitution.

Student Suspended For Asking That Class Be Taught In English


by

“Absurdity exists so that we may see what lies outside the bounds of normal human behavior. For without absurdity, we may never understand normality.”

Obama is still lying, John McCain is still spineless, and the Left is still trying their best to incite racial outrage. The world does not change—at least in terms of basic human behavior. In that vein, another thing that doesn’t change is absurdity.

In a story that pushes the boundaries of ridiculousness, an Arizona community college student has been suspended for filing a complaint about one of her classes. Terri Bennett complained that her class discussions were being dominated by Spanish language speaking. According to Town Hall:

In early April, the student, Terri Bennett, formally requested a rule limiting classroom discussion to English. Nursing program director David Kutzler allegedly responded by called her a ‘bigot and a bitch’…Kutzler allegedly charged that Bennett was ‘discriminating against Mexican-Americans’ and threatened to report her complaint as a violation of the school’s policies against discriminatory behavior and harassment.”

Let’s break this down:

1. The Arizona Constitution mandates that classrooms be taught in English. That alone makes Bennett’s suspension illegitimate.

2. Requesting that classroom discussions be in English is not bigoted. This is, in fact, America. Being that English is the language of this country, classes should be taught in English. It is up to those who don’t understand English to learn the language of the country in which they live. It is not Bennett’s problem to deal with.

3. Finally, suspending a student for such a request is deplorable. This is yet another example of the American education system bowing down to the gods of political correctness. It’s a sickness.

This story is so absurd that it could have been a satire. Political correctness is laying waste to our country–especially our educational system. It is a disease that eats away at the heart and soul of what it means to truly educate. Political correctness is a cancer that—If not stopped—will empty out our minds, leaving nothing but a hollow shell.

Terri Bennett’s community college scuffle is just the tip of the iceberg. Our PC culture has become a well organized machine, capable of killing us all, if we allow it.

This is a stunning example of modern American absurdity. This is not normal—or at least it shouldn’t be. Unfortunately, issues like this are becoming routine.

The American education system has failed. It’s time to start from scratch. We can begin by lifting up our heads, getting off our knees, and standing up in defiance of the politically correct state gods. We need to look them straight in the eyes, and declare war on the archaic American educational system.

If we don’t take a stand right now, political correctness will destroy us all.

It Takes More Faith to Believe in Evolution that Creation


Journalist Virginia Heffernan Admits She’s a Creationist and Drives Evolutionists Crazy

by http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/journalist-virginia-heffernan-admits-shes-a-creationist-and-drives-evolutionists-crazy/#ixzz2ZFDJOQps

In the midst of the George Zimmerman “not guilty” verdict, rioting, beatings, threats of violence, calls for “checking your white privilege,” and demands that we “give money to the Dream Defenders, to the Urban League, to the Southern Poverty Law Center … because racism is a natural disaster just like hurricanes and bombings and shootings are,” there’s a story going around about  journalist Virginia Heffernan who admits she’s a creationist.

The liberal disdain for Virginia Heffernan is thicker than quick-drying cement. Here’s just one example, written by Laura Helmuth at Slate:

“This is all just to say that I am trying to sympathize, I really am, with Virginia Heffernan. Heffernan is a writer for Yahoo News, formerly of the New York Times and formerly-formerly a TV critic for Slate. Last week she published an essay in which she revealed that she is a creationist. I’m not exaggerating. The essay is titled ‘Why I’m a Creationist,’ and she wrote: ‘Also, at heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it.’”

The article drips with disdain but does not offer a single verifiable scientific fact supporting how nothing became something.

Evolutionists can ridicule all they want (it’s all they have left), but they can’t prove that inorganic matter evolved into organic matter that evolved into the complex life forms we are and see around us. Evolutionists can’t get from atoms to people. It’s even worse for them since they can’t account for the original matter or the organized information necessary to organize the matter.

To believe in evolution is to believe in magic — literally. At least stage and street magicians start with a deck of cards, a coin, or a rabbit. Magicians can’t really make something appear out of thin air. But that’s exactly what evolutionists claim for evolution. When I say exactly, I mean exactly. Here’s an example found in the prestigious Scientific American:

“It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”[1]

It’s impossible to imagine because it’s impossible, but that’s what evolutionists believe. One of the first scientific truths a biology student learns is that spontaneous generation is not science, and yet in order to be an evolutionist, you must believe in it even though it’s contrary to logic, experience, and experimentation.

Did you notice that the authors describe cells as “machines”? When has a machine ever spontaneously come into existence? Never! “But there was this time 3.7 billion years ago. . . .”

Helmuth writes, “Whatever levels of analysis you care to use, from molecular to planetary, they all mutually reinforce the discovery that all living things evolve through a process of natural selection. Absolutely nothing in the 154 years since Origin was published has undermined the theory.” “Absolutely nothing”? Do I detect a hint of desperation and fear?

OK, Laura, like you, I started with the molecular. Using observation (no one was around 3.7 billion years ago and no one has seen nothing become something) and experimentation (no one has been able to produce life in the lab), demonstrate to us how evolution took place. Don’t theorize. Don’t assert. Don’t propagandize. Show us. You can’t and neither can Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionist living or dead.

Read more:

Why I’m a creationist

Virginia Heffernan, Yahoo News

July 11, 2013 // http://news.yahoo.com/why-im-a-creationist-141907217.html
In this May 2013 photo provided by Google, a giant tortoise crawls along the path near Googler Karin Tuxen­Bettman while she collects imagery with the Street View Trekker in Galapaguera, a tortoise breeding center, which is managed by the Galapagos National Park Service, in Ecuador. Few have laid eyes on many of the volcanic islands of the Galapagos archipelago that remain closed to tourists. But soon the curious will be able to explore these places that inspired Charles Darwin's theory of evolution from their computers or mobile devices. Google Maps sent crews armed with backpack-mounted Street View cameras and underwater gear to the Galapagos, and will be bringing the islands' natural wonders to the Internet. (AP Photo/Google)
> In this May 2013 photo provided by Google, a giant tortoise crawls along the path near Googler Karin …

As a child I fell in love with technology, but I have to admit I never fell in love with science. I kept hoping that messing around with Macs and Atari and eventually the Internet would nudge me closer to caring about the periodic table, Louis Pasteur and the double-blind studies that now seem to stand for science. As it was, I only cared about the double-blind studies that told me what I wanted to hear—that potatoes are good for you or that people of my height are generally happy—and I liked the phrase “double-blind” when it was on my side because it meant “true” and “take that.”

I assume that other people love science and technology, since the fields are often lumped together, but I rarely meet people like that. Technology people are trippy; our minds are blown by the romance of telecom. At the same time, the people I know who consider themselves scientists by nature seem to be super-skeptical types who can be counted on to denigrate religion, fear climate change and think most people—most Americans—are dopey sheep who believe in angels and know nothing about all the gross carbon they trail, like “Pig-Pen.”

I like most people. I don’t fear environmental apocalypse. And I don’t hate religion. Those scientists no doubt see me as a dopey sheep who believes in angels and is carbon-ignorant. I have to say that they may be right.

In the hazy Instagram picture I have in my mind of the mechanisms that animate my ingenious smartphone—a picture that slips in and out of focus, and one I constantly revise—it might as well be angels. At the same time, I have read and heard brilliantly serpentine arguments for and against fracking, not to mention for and against cities and coal and paper (it sidelines carbon and decomposes! it is toxic industrial waste!), and I still don’t know right from wrong when it comes to carbon. All I know is one side of these debates seems maybe slightly more bloodthirsty and opportunistic than the other—but now I can’t remember which one.

Also, at heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it. At least you, dear readers, won’t now storm out of a restaurant like the last person I admitted that to. In New York City saying you’re a creationist is like confessing you think Ahmadinejad has a couple of good points. Maybe I’m the only creationist I know.

This is how I came to it. Like many people, I heard no end of Bible stories as a kid, but in the 1970s in New England they always came with the caveat that they were metaphors. So I read the metaphors of Genesis and Exodus and was amused and bugged and uplifted and moved by them. And then I guess I wanted to know the truth of how the world began, so I was handed the Big Bang. That wasn’t a metaphor, but it wasn’t fact either. It was something called a hypothesis. And it was only a sentence. I was amused and moved, but considerably less amused and moved by the character-free Big Bang story (“something exploded”) than by the twisted and picturesque misadventures of Eve and Adam and Cain and Abel and Abraham.

Later I read Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population” and “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, as well as probably a dozen books about evolution and atheism, from Stephen Jay Gould to Sam Harris.

The Darwin, with good reason, stuck with me. Though it’s sometimes poetic, “The Origin of Species” has an enchantingly arid English tone to it; this somber tone was part of a deliberate effort to mark it as science and not science fiction—the “Star Trek” of its time. The book also alights on a tautology that, like all tautologies, is gloriously unimpeachable: Whatever survives survives.

But I still wasn’t sure why a book that never directly touches on human evolution, much less the idea of God, was seen as having unseated the story of creation. In short, “The Origin of Species” is not its own creation story. And while the fact that it stints on metaphor—so as to avoid being like H.G. Wells—neither is it bedrock fact. It’s another hypothesis.

Cut to now. I still read and read and listen and listen. And I have never found a more compelling story of our origins than the ones that involve God. The evolutionary psychologists with their just-so stories for everything (“You use a portable Kindle charger because mothers in the primordial forest gathered ginseng”) have become more contradictory than Leviticus. Did you all see that ev-psych now says it’s women who are naturally not monogamous, in spite of the same folks telling us for decades that women are desperate to secure resources for their kids so they frantically sustain wedlock with a rich silverback who will keep them in cashmere?

Sigh. When a social science, made up entirely of observations and hypotheses, tells us first that men are polygamous and women homebodies, and then that men are monogamous and women gallivanters—and, what’s more builds far-fetched protocols of dating and courtship and marriage and divorce around these notions—maybe it’s time to retire the whole approach.

All the while, the first books of the Bible are still hanging around. I guess I don’t “believe” that the world was created in a few days, but what do I know? Seems as plausible (to me) as theoretical astrophysics, and it’s certainly a livelier tale. As “Life of Pi” author Yann Martel once put it, summarizing his page-turner novel: “1) Life is a story. 2) You can choose your story. 3) A story with God is the better story.”

Pro-Abort Protestors Bring Excrement To Fight Pro-Life Bill


Liberals like to refer to the tea party as “tea baggers.” If you don’t know what that means, put it this way, I suggest you not look it up. Obviously, the tea party has nothing to do with a vulgar, sexual prank. It has to do with exposing big government, the politicians that facilitate it (regardless of political party), and holding them accountable. But liberals have dirty minds, and that’s all they could think of.

If you want a truly filthy and nasty group of people, go to the Texas capitol, where “pro-choice” activists are protesting a state bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. These people are so vile that Satan himself was offended that they took his name in vain.

While these pro-abort protestors were doing their job for Planned Parenthood and chanting “Hail, Satan” and having their own kids hold up disgusting signs with obscenities and vulgar sexual references, police ended up confiscating a number of props from these rioters. The Texas Tribune reported:

“When people were entering the gallery ahead of the Senate’s hearing, Department of Public Safety officials were initially prohibiting people from bringing feminine hygiene products like feminine pads and tampons into the gallery. DPS officials had been searching bags before letting people into the gallery, requiring them to throw away paper goods such as magazines, receipts, feminine pads and tampons. One DPS officer said authorities had been instructed by the Senate’s sergeant at arms to confiscate anything that could be thrown from the gallery at senators on the floor. She said they had already found objects such as bricks, paint and glitter in bags… DPS officials confiscated one jar they suspected had urine and 18 jars they suspected had feces while searching bags of people entering the gallery, the department confirmed in a press release Friday afternoon.”

They’ve got to come up with something like “tea bagger” to try to make us look bad. But these people actually bring bricks, urine and feces and all in the name of fighting for a woman’s “right” to murder her own unborn child. Cosmopolitan magazine even suggested women throw menstrual blood on politicians. We don’t have to come up with any label to try to make them look bad. They already look disgusting.

Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military


by

 

The good folks at the Family Research Council (FRC) have, over the years, done a lot of important work in fighting to keep Christian values and ethics in our media, as well as working to educate Christians all over the country to the dangers we face if we become culturally irrelevant. Recently, FRC has noticed a growing and disconcerting trend in our military and they’ve just released the findings for us to peruse.

In a report titled “A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military,” the FRC enumerates the increasing frequency of incidents of the military’s mounting intolerance of Christianity.

Some examples from FRC’s report:

  • Christian Embassy targeted by anti-Christian group – December 2006: Weinstein asked for—and received—a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of seven officers who appeared in a video for Christian Embassy ministry. The Inspector General concluded in August 2007 that the video was inappropriate, but Weinstein was not satisfied. After seeing the IG’s report, Weinstein told Beliefnet that even though the Air Force suggested corrective actions Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) “wanted to see courts martial.” In its press release MRFF also stated, “MRFF intends to file expeditiously a comprehensive Federal lawsuit that will rapaciously pursue legal remedies to the multitude of horrific Constitutional violations this DoD/IG report reveals.”
  • Air Force pulls ethics course from curriculum at air base – July 27, 2011: For 20 years, an ethics training course for nuclear missile officers was conducted by a chaplain at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. It included texts from the Bible and materials related to just war theory by Saint Augustine. This course was pulled for “thorough review” by the Air Force primarily due to its use of Christian reading materials.
  • Walter Reed Medical Center bans Bibles and religious material – September 14, 2011: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the leading medical institution for the U.S. armed forces, issued an official patient and visitor policy banning Bibles. It stated, “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” The policy was revoked after a political firestorm erupted in the House of Representatives.

FRC documents many more egregious examples, like the removal of a cross from a chapel, an officer was forced to remove a Bible from his desk, pro-life groups were linked to terrorism, and more.

christian-persecutionOne takeaway from a thorough reading of the FRC report is that the frequency of these events is increasing, and already 2013 seems to be a banner year for those who would attack any notion of Christianity in the military. The most terrifying aspect of this is, what happens when our Christian ethic is removed completely from the training our fighting men and women receive?

Already the frequency of suicide among service members is way up, and the moral compass of our soldiers is questioned around the globe. Now more than ever we need to be instilling the moral ethics of just war and faithful Christian teaching to our soldiers.

The work the FRC is doing to uncover what the secularists are trying (and succeeding) to do to our military is very important. All of our Congressmen need to see and read this report; it’s the best way to convince them to support our fighting men and women in turning the tide against the anti-God left.

The Summer of Our Discontent


We kicked kings, royal decrees and secret courts out of America long ago–or did we?

Now we have a President who decides which laws will be enforced and which citizens will be subject to those laws. Now, we have secret courts issuing rulings without public notice or argument. Now we have powerful federal agencies going after citizens who object.

In the imperial Presidency of Barack Obama, the government takeover of healthcare was enacted over the objections of a majority of citizens–even before repeated and solemn promises of no new taxes on the middle class were ruled false by the Supreme Court. And it gets worse.

Now the Administration has decreed that hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare subsidies will be paid out in states that embrace ObamaCare–with no questions asked about eligibility. Neither income nor existing insurance coverage will be certified before taxpayer money is paid out. It is an open invitation to commit fraud.

In a similar announcement last week, big businesses, like four million citizens (most in pro-ObamaCare unions) are to receive one-year “waivers” by royal decree. There is no legal authority for this decision but that is not stopping him.

Even Congressional staffers and their bosses are now lobbying for their own exemptions. Why not? The committee staffers who wrote Obamacare exempted themselves along with Congressional leadership, the White House and Cabinet officers.

Gone is the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that holds that all citizens are equally subject to federal statutes enacted by representatives of the people. Gone is the concept that those who govern are subject to “consent of the governed”.

When past Presidents tried to seize unconstitutional power we relied on the judicial branch of government to assert the needed “checks and balances”. But this President is now simply ignoring two federal courts who have ruled illegal his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

Worse, secret courts are making rulings allowing spying on law-abiding citizens with no possible connection to international terrorism. King George had secret courts that rounded up suspects and condemned them without defense or public notice. It is why our Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment. And how can the governed give consent to such secret decisions? Until Mr. Snowden, they were unknown. .

Frustrated with a divided government and a divided people, Barack Obama has made war on those who disagree. Rogue IRS agents hardly explain how one citizen, Catherine Englebrecht (who started a group investigating voter fraud) found herself the subject of multiple FBI visits and surprise audits from a range of federal agencies, including the IRS. It is simply not believable that this abuse was not directed by powerful figures within this Administration–but the FBI has still not investigated.

His treatment of existing federal laws is equally contemptuous. Obama decreed that 1.5 million illegal immigrants are no longer subject to applicable federal statutes. Unwilling to fight for changes to the No Child Left Behind Act, Obama decided that the law could be ignored. Now, more than half the states have been granted waivers.

Welfare work rules? It was a monumentally successful policy reform embraced by both parties and strong majorities in both the House and Senate, representing widespread public belief that unrestricted welfare payments were actually increasing poverty and dependency. This President has decided that this law, like others, is optional, shifting the entire concept of the Rule of Law and the will of the people to his discretion. All hail the King.

This President has shown through his many actions that he believes that consent of the governed is an outmoded idea that can be ignored. Congress can be ignored. The courts can be ignored.  The Constitution that he is sworn to uphold and the Attorney General is sworn to enforce is optional.

We kicked royalty out of our country long ago but royal decrees are here again. Our great experiment in personal liberty is in danger of being erased from within.

Ken Hoagland is chairman of “Restore America’s Voice Foundation”. His group has delivered two million petitions and hundreds of thousands of phone calls to the House and Senate demanding a new Senate vote on ObamaCare that honestly describes both the taxes levied for the program and the performance promises that have proven false. 

URGENT NEWS ALERT: Obama Commits to Signing UN Arms Trade Treaty While Congress at Summer Recess


The number one goal of the United Nations is to become the political entity that rules all nations or in other words, the one world government.  To accomplish that goal, they have to continue to exert their authority and power over individual countries and they have been quite successful at doing this in recent years.

One of the key pieces of international law that needs to be in place before the UN can take over the world is to control all weapons, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons and ammunition.  Over the past few years, the UN has been pushing one treaty that will help to accomplish that goal.  It is the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty is a treaty that would regulate the international sale and transfer of all conventional weapons throughout the world.  Conventional weapons are sea and land mines, rockets, missiles, cluster munitions, non-nuclear bombs, shells, small arms and light weapons.  By small arms, they mean handguns, rifles and shotguns of all kinds, regardless of their use or design.

A number of Second Amendment supporters and gun rights advocates believe that this treaty could be used to further regulate guns in the US and infringe on the rights of Americans to bear arms.  One hundred and thirty members of Congress jointly signed a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, insisting that they reject the UN Arms Trade Treaty, saying:

“As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty.”

However, Kerry released a statement about the treaty, saying:

“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.  [The treaty is] an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has indicated that President Obama intends to sign the treaty by the end of August.  Speaking on behalf of Obama, Carney said:

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.  While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

Notice that the time frame that Obama has given for his signature of the UN Arms Trade Treat just happens to coincide with Congress’s summer recess, which makes me wonder if he is going to try to pull something like a recess appointment to push it through without congressional approval.  But legally, he can’t because in order for an international treaty of any kind to become binding to the United States, it must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate.  At this time, it does not appear that there is enough support in the Senate to muster up 67 out of 100 votes.

Ratified or not, it’s clear that the Democratic Party continues to do their part in turning over US sovereignty to a radically liberal organization that is against everything America stands for.  The UN is against capitalism and the American way of government.  They have been actively undermining the Christian religion, traditional family values, parental authority and free speech.  The UN passed a massive hate crimes bill that makes any form of language against homosexuality to be a hate crime.  Preaching the Bible is a hate crime according to the UN.

So is it any wonder that Kerry and Obama want to just join the UN efforts to undermine and destroy America?  I, for one, believe that the United Nations is a terrorist organization that is actively trying to overthrow the US and subvert our way of life.  They need to be kicked out of our country.  Let them build a towering office building in a nation that really cares.  Leaving the UN would also save us hundreds of billions of dollars that could go a long way to putting American back on our financial feet.

Pro-Abortion Activists Call For The Rape of Legislators’ Daughters


by

Martin Luther King Jr. Said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Hatred feels good. Let me first admit that. There is a feeling of satisfaction that comes with hatred, unlike any other. However, that feeling quickly turns sour, making your stomach feel uneasy and your mind dark. That’s because hatred accomplishes nothing; hatred poisons your own mind. Nothing can be created with hatred as its driving factor.

The Left commonly uses hateful tactics to intimidate their enemies, because they have nothing substantive to use against you. Case in point: the Texas abortion legislature battle.

According to Life News:

“The paid protesters opposing the late-term abortion ban in Texas are doing more than rallying outside the legislature against the pro-life bill. They’re threatening pro-life state legislators and their staffers. Death threats, harassing emails and phone calls and calls for their daughters to be raped are among the hate targeted at pro-life lawmakers from the small contingent of abortion activists upset that Texas would consider banning abortions on babies at viability.

And according to the Washington Times: “Pro-choice protesters shouted, ‘Hail Satan!’ as an attempt to drown out pro-lifers’ rendition of ‘Amazing Grace.’“

Let me ask you: What can be accomplished with hate mail? What can be accomplished with hoping for rape? What can be accomplished by chanting “Hail Satan?” It is useless, guttural filth pouring forth from the mouths of those who have within their hearts an overabundance of hate. It constructs nothing. There is no solution offered, nor is there any thoughtful discussion being initiated with words like these.

But the Left cannot abide thoughtful debate or conversation. Their minds are not built to understand anything but that which they already believe. They see their opposition, not as people with souls, personalities, and thoughtful opinions, but as evil, degenerate hate-mongers. With that mindset, true debate will never take place.

That is the main difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives are willing to engage their opposition with logical arguments, and Liberals only know what they believe. As Sun Tzu said: “know your enemy.”

Conservatives know their opponents. Liberals do not know their opponents. That is why the Left resorts to hatred, and death threats. That’s all they have. They have no information about their opponents’ beliefs, because they cannot comprehend them. It is a neurological block.

The hatred to which the Left resorts will only serve to harden their hearts, creating a cycle of cruelty that cannot be stopped. Whether or not it is this mental block that causes Liberalism, or Liberalism that creates the mental block, it holds their minds captive; it doesn’t allow new information to enter.

We can never resort to their tactics. It is only the truth that can set us free. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, but a single pinpoint of light can drive darkness back into hiding. We have to be better.

Obama Compares Catholic School With Racial Segregation


by

While in Ireland, President Obama said this:

“Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity—symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others–these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs—if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”

Barack Obama is quite adept at saying one thing, while meaning another. Taken at face value, the essence of what the President said is accurate: fear and resentment may harden us to others; and it discourages cooperation. So, if one were to take out of context what the President said, it might make for a delightful sound bite; making Obama seem as wise and urbane as the media makes him out to be.

However, by reading the entirety of his speech, it is quite clear that Obama is directly comparing racial segregation to religious education. Let’s break down what the most powerful man in the world said:

1. He first establishes that segregation is a despicable thing. Ok, that’s accurate.

2. He then goes on to compare religious education among Catholics and Protestants to segregation. In essence, Obama is claiming that sending your child to be educated in an environment that you believe is better suited to your views is comparable to not wanting your children around black people.

3. He makes sure to evoke the everlasting tension between Catholic and Protestant so that it doesn’t appear as though he is talking directly about racial segregation; but rather religious and social segregation.

4. Beyond the obvious absurdity of comparing religious education to racial segregation, this has implications beyond the scope of school. By chastising the Catholic schools and Protestant schools for “segregation,” Obama is essentially taking a shot at religion in general. Is he saying that because many of us choose to be either Catholic or Protestant, that we are segregating ourselves? Is he saying that practicing one faith over another is comparable to black segregation? If so, he is making a clear and dangerous move against freedom of religion.

5. The President also links religion and religious education directly with hatred and resentment. He is taking liberties in terms of speaking about faith that no President should take. At its core, Obama’s message is that this school, and religious “segregation” is a source of resentment; that it creates and fosters resentment.

6. Finally, it’s Democratic policies that cause this supposed segregation in the first place. If the Democrats were to actually implement a voucher school choice program, parents would be free to choose the schools best suited for their kids. In that case, poor kids, whose parents cannot afford Catholic or Private school, would not be locked into an awful district. With choice, I’m sure many parents—even non-religious parents—would rather have their kids in a faith based school over a public school. Regardless, this “segregation” comparison is absolute garbage.

What Obama loves to do is speak these elegant and striking words that mean absolutely nothing. When taken apart, and understood clinically, Obama’s words often represent the exact opposite of his apparent intention. With this speech, apparently intended to provoke thought and discussion regarding a divided people, Obama has insulted schools of faith, religion at large, and those who simply desire a better education for their children.

Apparently, reptiles aren’t the only creatures with forked tongues.

Atheist Monument Opposes Ten Commandments with no Alternative


http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/atheist-monument-opposes-ten-commandments-with-no-alternative/#ixzz2Wb8b8RLA

The courtyard outside the Bradford County Courthouse in north Florida will include quotations from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the founder of American Atheists. It will also include a list of Old Testament punishments that mandate the death penalty. The atheist monument will stand next to a copy of the Ten Commandments.

Atheists have no moral standing in critiquing any moral law system. Atheism cannot account for morality. Morality is not a thing. It is not made up of atoms. Morality cannot be derived from the stuff of the cosmos or extracted from our DNA. As a result, atheists can’t argue against murder, genocide, rape, theft, or any other moral aversion. In fact, the category “morality” does not exist in a matter-only worldview.

Atheists have put together the “enjoy yourself” campaign. Here’s there logic:There's No God_enjoy Self

There’s No God. So Stop Worrying and Enjoy Yourself.

What if people enjoy killing, raping, stealing, and eating people?

If there were a set of commandments that said, “Thou shalt not drive red cars,” “Thou shalt not live in four-side houses,” and “Thou shalt not hop, skip, and jump,” there is nothing within atheism that could fundamentally raise an objection.

Arthur Leff (1935–1981), who taught law at Yale Law School, concluded that, given atheistic assumptions, no way to prove that “any particular act, no matter how horrible, is normatively wrong.” Leff stated:

“I will put the current situation as sharply as possible: there is today no way of ‘proving’ that napalming babies is bad except by asserting it (in a louder and louder voice), or by defining it as so, early in one’s game, and then later slipping it through, in a whisper, as a conclusion.”[1]

In Leff’s analysis, “‘good’ becomes just a function of nosecounting.”[2] Was he exaggerating? I don’t think so. Look around us. Where is an absolute moral standard to be found? If you say religion, you’ll never be hired by a major university or sit on the Supreme Court.

Many don’t remember how then-Senator Joe Biden grilled Clarence Thomas on his belief in Natural Law. Thomas knew that any dialog with Biden over the idea that there is a God-given law would have doomed his nomination. Thomas was smart to let Biden ramble and get his analysis of Natural Law wrong, and impossible to account for, given evolutionary assumptions which America’s new religion.

But it’s worse than that for the atheist. There is no basis for the categories “good” and “evil” in a matter-only cosmos. Anything that’s left of the idea of fixed moral laws is an illusion that will soon fade as our nation becomes consistent with what it has mandated from the courts and taught in our schools.

The acceptance of the atheist monument by civil officials and the courts as somehow being equal to the Ten Commandments is a prime indicator that secularism is on its death bed. Let’s pray that we all don’t end up there with them.

Benghazi Scandal Takes Another Turn Against Obama and Clinton


by

It seems that in the wake of the IRS and NSA scandals that the Benghazi scandal has almost been forgotten.  However the recent admission of Martin Dempsey, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, is certain to bring it all back into the limelight.

In the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate grounds in Benghazi, The White House and State Department both said that there were no troops or Special Forces that could have reached the consulate in time to help them, even though there were reports that said otherwise.

Now we learn that both the White House (Obama) and the State Department (Clinton) were again lying to the American people.  According to a statement from Dempsey, a highly trained team of Special Forces, C-110, were within a few hours of Benghazi.  The consulate reported that they were under attack early on and the attack lasted over 8 hours.  If Dempsey is telling the truth, the Special Forces unit could have been there and possibly save the lives of the four Americans.

Dempsey tried to protect the White House and State Department by first saying that the Special Forces unit was more than 6 hours away and that was only if they were setting on the tarmac at the time.  He did acknowledge that the unit was training in Croatia.  A large commercial jet liner can make the trip in about two and half hours, and sources close to the unit said they could have loaded up and flown to Benghazi in about four to four and half hours.

He also testified that the Special Forces unit had been told to begin preparations to leave Croatia to return to the base in Germany.  If that were true, then they would have already been preparing their gear for transport which would have cut their arrival time to Benghazi down.

Dempsey’s testimony before the Senate did verify a report that was aired on Fox News back in April that said there was a Special Forces unit close enough to have responded to the call for help from the consulate.  The Fox News report quoted a whistleblower source as saying:

“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage.  “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours … four to six hours.”

“They would have been there before the second attack.  They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfil [sic] out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisers say hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation.”

To add more controversy to what was reported and what really happened, Dempsey told the Senate hearing that on the night of the Benghazi attack, the command of the Special Forces unit was unexpectedly transferred from the European Command to the Africa Command.  Former Libyan Deputy Ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified earlier that when he got word of the attack, he tried to contact the Africa Command but received no support.  He said:

“At about 10:45 or 11 we confer, and I asked the defense attache who had been talking about AFRICOM and with the joint staff, ‘Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?’ And he answered that, the nearest help was in Aviano, the nearest – where there were fighter planes. He said that it would take two to three hours for them to get onsite, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and we went on with our work.”

So even in his attempt to support the White House and Statement Department, Dempsey only helped verify the earlier reports that help could have been sent to Benghazi, but it wasn’t.  The help could have possibly arrived in time to make a difference, but no attempt or effort was made to save the Americans at the consulate.  Our government deserted our ambassador and his staff and just left them there to fend for themselves against nearly 200 hostiles.

Perhaps this needs to be pointed out to anyone interested in pursuing a diplomatic career with the State Department.  Once deployed on foreign shores, you’re on your own, especially if you are in a known hostile region and the President and Secretary of State will lie to your families as your body is returned to them.  Doesn’t that make you want to sign up?

GIVE ME DEATH


If Barack Obama didn’t tell Lois Lerner to target his enemies it’s because he didn’t have to. She knows who her boss is and they’re happy as hell with the job she did to help silence Tea Party, religious and conservative groups going into the 2012 election. Ms. Lerner hasn’t been charged, fired, or even had her computer unplugged. She took the Fifth and got a promotion administering ObamaCare.

My point is the Obama Administration is more than willing to use the power of the Federal government to deny Americans their Constitutional rights. “There is no direct link to the White House…” So what? When a baseball team is in last place no one says; “There’s no direct link to the manager. He wasn’t at bat or playing the field – he had nothing to do with it…” It’s his team, just like this is Barack Obama’s team. The manager and most of the players have got to go and this President is no different, except there are probably high crimes and misdemeanors involved here.

I care about Edward Snowden only to the extent that he’s the reason we’re talking about the NSA trolling billions of phone calls, email messages, texts, videos and other means of private communications. Apparently, the information Mr. Snowden “leaked” was already out there but other NSA whistleblowers, Bill Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, who “did it right,” got harassed, were retaliated against, and most importantly – nothing changed at the NSA, except It got bigger and more secretive. Defenders say the programs are effective and agents can only collect the data, not actually look at it without a court order. Yeah, about that…

In a secret Capitol Hill briefing, the NSA recently disclosed that thousands of analysts have the authority to listen to domestic phone calls. That goes for email and text messages as well. And when I say “secret” Capitol Hill briefing, I of course mean  everyone knows about it. This would be funny if the story didn’t end with me kicking someone’s ass in the gulag. In light of such clear evidence this Administration is not to be trusted with information; why would we grant them the ability to collect this ‘meta-data’? It’s insane. Do I have to list the other Obama scandals that involve secrecy, deception, obfuscation and outright lies?

You know how it’s not cool to make a joke about a bomb when you’re at the airport? Do it and you’ll be detained for hours and be put on a list or two. Does the airport bomb-joke rule go for private conversations, emails, or texts now? Is there even such a thing as a private conversation now? If someone at the NSA finds something they deem suspicious, can they go back years and listen to everything you say to anyone – on the phone, email, text, video – whatever? What’s stopping them from investigating your friends and family using the powers granted to them to catch terrorists? Is this just a continuation of Bush policies or is it much, much bigger as Mr. Snowden claims – a Marxist conspiracy by Chicago thugs?

My point is, do I have to watch what I say on the phone or email for fear Big Brother will become suspicious? They have all my records now and just need to get a FISA court to sign off on further intrusion. How would I know they’re investigating me and everyone I’ve ever called, emailed or texted? And what if I did something private I don’t want anyone else to see? Just to be clear: It’s none of your business. I don’t need another reason.

Trusting government to follow the law are Boehner, Feinstein, Rogers, Saxby, McCain, Reid and others who have been collecting a government paycheck since before the Louisiana purchase. Then there’s Karl Rove who said on Fox that folks opposed to NSA programs must also be against local police forces who use the same type of intelligence gathering to solve crime. Mr. Rove – I haven’t committed a crime! I haven’t been accused of one either, and I damn sure don’t want government agents collecting my records without cause for any reason. patrick henry2

There are people I do respect on a certain Fox News Show… let’s just say it’s on at FIVE, who say these are necessary anti-terrorist programs because if just one nuclear bomb gets through we’re all dead. I’m not going to say their names because I sincerely think they’re both solid people and great conservatives, but their initials are Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. Question, you two: Does “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death” ring a bell? Did you miss the part where Eric Holder goes from judge to judge until he finds one to sign off on James Rosen being a co-conspirator and a flight-risk? Now we’re supposed to believe they wouldn’t do the same with a FISA court? Did the IRS petition anybody to deny Obama’s enemies their civil rights?

Look at what this President and Congress has done over the past five years with the dollar, the military, the economy, welfare, unemployment. Talk about endangering the well-being of the country – they’ve done a million more times damage to the safety and defense of this nation than Edward Snowden ever could. It’s shocking to me that we’re even debating giving them these kind of powers after all the questions about voting irregularities in the last election. Ask anyone who escaped a place of tyranny if they think this is a good idea.

With every phone record, text, and email of everyone in the nation at hand, a motivated administration could easily fix a national election. You don’t think they’d be on board with that? These are the same people who give automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to gin up a phony gun crisis here in America to push their anti-Second Amendment crusade. They invented a crazy anti-video riot to cover-up the deaths in Benghazi. These are bad, bad, people who should not have any power at all, much less this kind. This NSA matter isn’t about terrorism, it’s about you. Controlling you. Ten years ago, I would have called myself crazy for saying that.

2014 is right around the corner.

Obama’s Egyptian Buddies Prove He’s Guilty of High Treason!


Dave Jolly makes a good argument. He is a trusted writer and presents his case well. I am not in agreement that President Obama has committed treason, but, Mr. Jolly’s perspective does have merit.  – MrB

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/obamas-egyptian-buddies-prove-hes-guilty-of-high-treason/#ixzz2WEMjj741
 

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America reads:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

1)  Has President Barack Hussein Obama committed treason according to the US Constitution?

Yes he has and is still doing so.   Ever since the overthrow of Egypt’s former dictator, President Obama has been a close ally to the Muslim Brotherhood and their Egyptian leaders.  Obama has pushed to send billions of dollars in aid to Egypt.  At one point, Congress stopped all monies heading to the land of pyramids because of their questionable leadership and ties to terrorism.  Obama took it upon himself to override Congress’s blockage of funds and sent them their millions of dollars.  Obama has also provided Egypt with fighter jets and other military arms.

Egypt’s leaders have now publicly admitted that America is an enemy like Israel that needs to be battled with.  In a closed secret meeting, Egypt’s leadership including President Morsi discussed how they could stop Ethiopia from completing its construction of a dam along the Nile River before it enters into Egypt.

Although the meeting was supposed to be secret, they failed to realize that TV cameras were rolling and that their meeting was being broadcast live on Egyptian television.  The broadcast caught a number of the leaders saying that the dam in Ethiopia was a secret plot by both America and Israel to undermine Egypt and that they must figure out how to stop it from being completed.

The television broadcast caught Magdi Hussein, the leader of the Islamic Labor Party saying:

“I’m very fond of battles. With the enemies, of course, with America and Israel, but this battle must be waged with maximum judiciousness and calm. Even though this is a secret meeting we must all take an oath not to leak anything to the media unless it is done officially by Sister Pakinam. We need an official plan for popular national security, even if we did …”

<iframe width=”640″ height=”480″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/sSxkori-tPw?rel=0&#8243; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

The Egyptian leaders’ own words identify America as an enemy in the same category as Israel.  Therefore, I contend that we have proof that Egypt and President Morsi are our enemies.

2) Do we have the testimony of two or more witnesses to Obama’s crime of treason?

Yes!  It’s a matter of public record that Obama bypassed Congress to give aid to our enemies in the form of money and military supplies, some of which may be used against Americans.

I don’t know how to make the case of treason any more clear than it is.  Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of treason as defined the Constitution of the United States of America by willfully, and against the consent of Congress, rendering aid and military supplies to a proven enemy of our country.  He needs to be charged and tried for his high crimes and punished accordingly.

Obama makes Benedict Arnold look like a loyal patriot compared to his own treachery.  Had Arnold not fled to England with the British troops, he would have been caught and hanged for his treachery.  I think we should give Obama the same option of fleeing the country or be hanged for high treason.

Decapitated Head Found Left in Womb


Abortion Horror Hits Michigan When Decapitated Head Found Left in Womb

By now you’ve seen and heard about the House of Horrors as it has been referred to in the news.  Abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia ran a clinic in the poorer area of the city and preyed upon thousands of young women who couldn’t afford to go anywhere else.  He has been charged with the death of one woman and four newborns, although reports from different sources clearly indicate that he has killed many more than four live born babies.

Last July we learned about 24 year old Tonya Reaves who went to a Chicago area Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion.  Not only was her unborn murdered at the clinic, so was Tonya.  She was hemorrhaging after the procedure but the staff at the clinic failed to call for help until several hours later.  But by the time help arrived and she was transported to a hospital, it was too late.  Her one year old son will never know his mother and it seems no one at the clinic was ever punished for their neglect.

Other women have died at the hands of abortion doctors and clinic workers, but that rarely ever makes the news.  In fact, Tonya Reaves death at the Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic happened on the same day that James Holmes went into the theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire.  We heard lots about that, but virtually no media covered the murder of Reaves because it would paint a negative image on abortion and they can’t let that happen, can they?

Now we are hearing about another abortion horror story, only this time it’s coming from Muskegon, Michigan.  Dr. Robert Alexander, the abortionist in question, has had several of his patients sent to the emergency room after botched abortions.  According to one OB/GYN who has seen several of Alexander’s victims:

“Dr. Alexander perforated the woman’s uterus so badly that it was hanging on by two blood vessels.  The decapitated head of a fetus was in the woman’s abdomen and the large intestine had been grasped and pulled away from its blood supply and into the vagina. The woman required a hysterectomy, colonoscopy [colectomy?], and several units of blood to save her life.”

The worse part of this is that there were multiple complaints filed against Alexander for his negligence, but those complaints were not taken seriously by the Michigan Board of Medicine.  In 2009, Dr. George Shade, chairman of the board responded to a complaint by stating that no investigation was needed.  Further investigation revealed that Alexander had served time in prison for selling illegal prescriptions and had his medical license suspended.  Upon his release from prison, Dr. George Shade helped Alexander get his license re-instated by becoming his mentor and helping him.

Eventually in December 2012, Alexander’s clinic was shut down.  When police entered the clinic to investigate a break-in on Dec. 26, 2012, they found what they described as unsafe and unsanitary conditions, not too dissimilar to that of the clinic that Gosnell operated in Philadelphia.  They found blood dripping from the p-trap of a sink, dirty and stained medical equipment, improper storage of needles, a leaking ceiling and bags of trash next to lab equipment.  The fire department also discovered that the clinic had been illegally dumping chemicals and other liquids down the drain.

Fortunately, Alexander is no longer murdering babies in Muskegon, but that doesn’t mean he can’t go elsewhere and start again.  The OB/GYN doctor that reported finding the decapitated head in the mother’s womb commented about the clinic being shut down, saying:

“I, for one, was very happy to hear he is no longer practicing in Muskegon, but I fear for women anywhere this man would go.”

In this case, it was Alexander’s connection to Dr. George Shade, that allowed him to continue to butcher women and babies and run another House of Horror.  All it takes is one or two shootings for liberal Democrats to react and take action against guns.  How many of these incidents will it take before they take action to shut down the bloody institution of abortion?  Sandy Hook saw the death of 20 kids.  Abortion kills between 750,000 to 1,300,000 kids a year.  You weigh the difference and tell me there isn’t an agenda on both issues.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/abortion-horror-hits-michigan-when-decapitated-head-found-left-in-womb/#ixzz2SXWNBcMU

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: